Sunday, April 12, 2009

One of the hallmarks of bigotry is the need for the bigot to identify the target group of being morally inferior to the bigots' group, thus making it legitimate to look down upon the target group, and to give them second-class status.

So, we get comments such as:

Do you have any idea how many untold thousands of lives have been saved by the loving action of Christians who have cared?

Here is where the bigot declares the moral inferiority of the 'others' that he seeks to target.

In fact, this sentence as a premise in an argument makes no sense unless we include a second, unspoken, premise to go along with it. It is in this second premise that the bigotry can be found.

Do you have any idea how many untold thousands of lives have been saved by the loving action of Christians who would not have otherwise been saved

.

If these lives would have been saved anyway, then the argument grants no special advantage to Christianity.

It is only under the assumption that only Christians are interested in saving lives - and all others are happy to stand around and laugh or simply ignore those in danger - that the above statement carries any weight.

It is only under the assumption that 'we Christians' are the morally superior people who, in virtue of our disposition to save lives that no other people possess, that this argument can be taken to imply a difference between Christians and non-Christians.

There is one important point that I want to make about bigotry before I go much further. Bigotry is a particularly insidious immorality. The person who is a bigot can live the bulk of his or her life as a decent individual - giving to charity, taking care of their family, lending a hand to their neighbors (as long as they are the right neighbors) any time those neighbors are in need.

For example, America's founding fathers were, in some aspects, extremely admirable men. I admire and respect George Washington most for his decision not to become a king or a military dictator (because he could have done so and have been cheered for doing so). Similarly, there is much to respect not only in Thomas Jefferson's intellect, but in the fact that so much of it was focused less on his own benefit and more on the benefit of mankind.

Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the declaration that "all men are created equal" was, indeed, meant to apply only to men - and not women, and not to blacks who were considered to be little more than animals with the capacity to speak.

When a person is raised in bigotry, that bigotry fits comfortably, like a well-worn shirt. It fits so comfortably that the wearer can barely imagine being without it. Certainly, nothing that fits so comfortably - that feels so right - cannot be wrong. This, of course, becomes one of the chief reasons why bigotry is so difficult to combat.

Before I close, I do want to add something:

Atheists are prone to the same types of bigotry as theists. It is all too common to read atheists proclaiming that being an atheist alone makes one superior to the (deluded, irrational, intellectually irresponsible) theist.

I find way too many arguments in which an atheist attempts to begin with premises identifying some evil done by a person who was religious, who then seek to cast the blame on religion in general. Which just as certainly qualifies as hate-mongering bigotry as attempts to take the evil done by some atheist or another and casting the blame on all atheists.

Whereas I recognize that most of my readers are atheists, and most of them are already overly disposed to hold bigoted and prejudicial attitudes towards theists, I am obligated to warn that this is not an argument against all theists. This is a fault with those theists who make arguments that only make sense under the bigoted assumption that the lives that Christians save would not have otherwise been saved.

Which is not all theists.

And those atheists who would want to take this posting as a criticism of all theists are as bad as that subset of theists that this post does criticize.

8 comments:

I figure there are times everyone allows their personnel bigotry get the better of them. I know I am at times guilty of wanting to blame all in a group for the actions of those on its extreme sides. I don't see religion as the only teacher of this need to feel superior to others. Look at how we are taught each of the states we live in are the best and all the others come in second to our states. Is it possible that feeling superior to others is part of our natural reaction or is it only something we are taught?I think people should ask themselves how many untold thousands have not been saved because of their actions or lack of actions. I know that there is no way we can save all the lives lost to both natural and man made disasters.

Alonzo, I suppose this will be my final comment here, in view of my being considered a bigot. I want at least to respond to two things:

"It is only under the assumption that 'we Christians' are the morally superior people who, in virtue of our disposition to save lives that no other people possess, that this argument can be taken to imply a difference between Christians and non-Christians."

I assume you value empiricism. I linked previously to empirical, not theological or prejudicial, but sociological studies showing a difference between Christians and non-Christians in their giving, service, and so on. So a difference between Christians and non-Christians is not inferred only on the assumption of moral superiority, but on the facts of how the groups act in the world.

2. Conversely, my claims are not based on any personal superiority of Christians, but on the greatness of Jesus Christ who fixes broken lives and straightens out crooked hearts, including my own. I have a very clear view of the mess I would be at this point in my life apart from him.

It would appear from this most recent post of yours that my comments here have elicited some anger. That was not my intent. I had some questions to ask, many of which have gone unanswered (as here, here,and especially here, where I asked how it is you propose to reduce harm in the world by excluding every religious believer from any involvement in ethical decision-making. It seems to me that would increase harm considerably just on its own. I'll admit that comment went on to more than asking questions, for I think that one point alone is fatal to your harm-producing principle whereby you would exclude religious persons from ethical discussions.

You wrote in the current post,

"One of the hallmarks of bigotry is the need for the bigot to identify the target group of being morally inferior to the bigots' group, thus making it legitimate to look down upon the target group, and to give them second-class status."

"So, the fact that there are people who give sophisticated arguments in defense of certain religious beliefs does not invalidate the claim that many of the common assertions that we hear people give every day are intellectually reckless (or deceptive) and morally bankrupt – and worthy of condemnation.

"To draw out the relevance of these points, there are people out there who ground the belief that others may be subject to harm on groundless, evidence-free faith. The fact that there are others with more sophisticated view does not give us reason to dismiss the moral charges against those who base their call for doing harm to the life, health, and liberty of others on groundless faith.

"Whether we are talking about outright dishonesty or intellectual recklessness, either way we are talking about a moral failing. We are talking about people whose values are such that they are disposed to act in ways that bring unjustified harm to others. Consequently, we are talking about people who deserve not only criticism for their actions, but moral condemnation. These are not virtuous people. A virtuous person has more concern than this over the possibility of bringing unjustified harm to others."

I'll leave you with those two statements to compare with each other (and added to them, you might also throw in your overall principle that certain people ought to be excluded from ethical discussions). I think that's all I will have to say here. Thanks for letting me visit a while.

Sorry to see you go Tom. I don't see the anger you are seeing in this blog but then I don't always get everything. Do you admit that when someone takes a view that can been seen as superior to others it is a form of bigotry? Not all forms of superiority are forms of bigotry, I am a NASCAR fan and I know when those drivers talk about being better drivers they have a leg to stand on. They provide evidence and they know they are better then most driver but they don't try to put it out for everyone to see. A few of them do.

I must have missed those links but I can see why christians are seen as bigger givers by some. I know any money or time I give to charity, it is when I know that religion won't be using it to force their views on others. Here in Arkansas that type of thing goes on within some of the charities here. I want most of what I give to help others with no strings.

I linked previously to empirical, not theological or prejudicial, but sociological studies showing a difference between Christians and non-Christians in their giving, service, and so on.

Yes, you did.

However, if the statistics had gone the other direction, I would have never used them the way you did - precisely because I believe it is wrong to make these types of generalizations.

In fact, I do know of such statistics - statistics that show that the more secular a country is the lower its murder, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, and STD rates are. I also know of studies that show that, per capita, atheists make up a substantially smaller portion of the prison population in the United States than theists (that is, atheists, on the whole, are more law-abiding).

However, I view the use of these statistics to conclude that the atheist tribe is superior to the theist tribe to be as morally objectionable as using similar statistics to show that white people are superior to black people.

We each have a right to be judged by our own actions, not by any statistical association with some group others want to lump us into.

As it turns out, a large faction of atheists in the United States are the "virtue of selfishness" followers of Ayn Rand who object to all charity. Their presence is certain to skew any numbers.

But why should I be condemned because of them? Why does the fact that they are atheists give any legitimacy to the conclusion that the rest of us care less about charity than theists?

This is like condemning all theists because some theists like to engage in suicide bombings. You are not responsible for the crimes of others who also happen to believe in God, and I am not responsible for the non-chritable actions of a "virtue of selfishness" crowd that does not believe in God.

"However, I view the use of these statistics to conclude that the atheist tribe is superior to the theist tribe to be as morally objectionable as using similar statistics to show that white people are superior to black people."

Did I use those statistics to draw that conclusion? Look at the context, please. I was bringing evidence that it was empirically (as well as theoretically) wrong to exclude Christians from discussion on ethics, because historical and current sociological fact shows that Christians have made a demonstrably positive contribution to the world.

When someone accuses a group, as you have done, of being unqualified to participate in moral discussion, it can hardly be out of place for someone like me to respond with both theoretical and empirical arguments. You made a really outrageous proposal: that in the name of reducing harm Christians should be banned from the ethical discussion table, (or at least many Christians should; there's an unanswered question for you about that still.) I don't think it's inappropriate to submit more than one line of reasoning in response to such an extreme claim.

Tom, perhaps you missed my comment, but I pointed out that Alonzo is saying no such thing.

"Alonzo has never said that theists have no say in deciding what causes harm. In fact he says the exact opposite - that all desires are considered. You are correct that excluding a large portion of the population (or any portion, really) causes great harm, but this is not what Alonzo advocates. What he does say is that faith-based reasons are inadmissible when determining if harm can be done to someone, because (due to the fact that no gods exist) they are the equivalent of saying "You should be harmed simply because I want to cause you harm." This is a bad reason, and a morally-bad desire."

When someone accuses a group, as you have done, of being unqualified to participate in moral discussion...

That never happened.

I said that faith-based reasons are not legitimate ground for causing harm to others.

I said that secular reasons (reasons that appeal to all people regardless of religion) are morally required.

A lot of Christians agree with that view, by the way.

This is substantially what the founding fathers meant by the phrase that the Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion.

It means that, for a reason to count as a valid reason for law, it must be the type of reason that appeals across all religions, and not a reason valid only within a specific religion.

"Secular" does not mean "atheist", by the way. "Secular" is the opposite of "Sectarian". "Sectarian" appeals to reasons only valid within a particular religious framework, while "Secular" appeals to reasons valid across all religious frameworks.

Yes, prejudices (if I get it right, bigotry is an extreme form of it) do exist. And if one may view stereotyping as a "prejudice-based instantaneous classification" of people, then I have indulged in bigotry as an atheist.

I can only speak for myself. I'm apt to judge people very quickly. Certain personality traits go together. For instance, a person given to jealousy, is also very likely to be hostile, uncooperative, and unreliable.

So, if I encounter an atheist, it could be my first reaction to assume that person to be rational, truth-loving, and not easily deterred by societal pressures, but it may so turn out that that person stopped believing in God only because the God did not grant a few wishes (and thus claim to be an atheist!).

I can think of two disparate kind of theists--the extremely religious ones, who could never really entertain the possibility of nonexistence of God as that would be blasphemous! I'd certainly conclude that such person would less likely apply original thought, and be closed to their long-held ideas in most of the possible issues (and, also that given the right environment, could easily be manipulated). On the opposite end of the spectrum of religious believers are those who believe in God only as they otherwise can't imagine a COMPLICATED Universe without God, who can't imagine a Universe without purpose, but who totally believe that through science and mathematics a great deal of phenomena could be explained and made to occur in fashion beneficial to the mankind (technology). I'd respect the intellect and convictions of such a personmuch more than a disgruntled-with-God-"atheist".

So for me, per se, it's not the ultimate conclusion about the existence of God that matters as much as how that it is arrived at.

This kind of instant-judging can prove inaccurate in the long run, but I do apply it quite successfully to people even on the bases of other attributes, too and not just belief or nonbelief in the existence of God.

About Me

When I was in high school, I decided that I wanted to leave the world better off than it would have been if I had not existed. This started a quest, through 12 years of college and on to today, to try to discover what a "better" world consists of. I have written a book describing that journey that you can find on my website. In this blog, I will keep track of the issues I have confronted since then.